Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-fluentials

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-fluentials

This formerly had a transwiki tag on it, but I don't think that's an option here. Seems to be original research to me. TheProject 00:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete pernom M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (OR) —M e ts501^talk 00:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No transwiki. I don't think neologisms should automatically be dumped onto Wiktionary. If someone wants them there, let them do it. Fan1967 01:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable (though Google suggests verifiability/notabilty may not be far off). Fagstein 01:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Nick Y. 02:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search shows it is not original research. It is a term that is being used by different organisations. Tyrenius 03:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nothing I could find on Google tells me exactly what makes a person e-fluential. The term isn't well-defined -- everybody has their own definitions of the term -- so I still think anything Wikipedia puts on is someone's original definition. TheProject 04:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind you'll have to point to at least one reliable source. Google hits are less than a dime a dozen these days, and don't necessarily mean it isn't OR. Fagstein 06:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest starting with one of the surveys commissioned by Burson Marsteller. However, there seems to be some misunderstanding of the nature of NOR (which I have encountered on more than one occasion). NOR refers to the Wiki editor, not to the data that the editor collects. To quote from the policy: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." To attempt to synthesise a definitive meaning for "E-fluentials" would be specifically barred under NOR. The necessary approach would be to cite the differing definitions of the term, citing sources. Tyrenius 07:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 100% persuaded by Tyrenius. Vizjim 10:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure I agreee this is a WP:NOR violator, but it does appear to be a WP:NEO that is not used outside of viral marketing websites and a few Tucker Max fancruft sites... no opinion yet.
Delete per Tyrenius and others. This is vanispamcruft masquerading as a neologism. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...err, Tyrenius voted Keep, in case you guys didn't notice that. Teke 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. Hey, either these people are commenting on autopilot, or my "keep" argument is so bad it's convinced them to "delete".Tyrenius 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's pretty funny. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's marketing cruft. If I had a penny for every word these people make up... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands this article is probably copyvio. See bm.com delete ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.